Performance Measurement: The ENAPS Approach

Jimmie Browne & John Devlin, Asbjorn Rolstadas & Bjorn Andersen,
CIMRU, SINTEF,
University College Galway, Ireland. Norwegian University of Science and
Technology,Trondheim, Norway.

Abstract
Performance measurement is a prerequisite to performance improvement. For enterprises

to improve their performance in today’s industrial environment, they must be able to

measure how they are performing at present, and be able to measure how they are

performing after any changes. Riggs and Felix [1983] claim that “if an improvement can’t

be proved, it wasn’t”. In particular, if an organisation wishes to improve one of its

processes, then the performance of the process needs to be measured. Performance

measures are also important for comparing performance between enterprises. ‘Best

practice’ within an industry is determined by the enterprise with the most desirable levels

of the performance measures used. Therefore, it would be advantageous if all similar

enterprises were to use a similar set of performance measures. The ENAPS performance

measurement system seeks to achieve this goal by producing a generic set of performance

measures that enterprises can use to measure and compare their manufacturing practices.

Keywords: Performance Measurement, Performance Benchmarking.

1. Introduction

The motivation behind this paper originates from the European Commission funded

ESPRIT project, ENAPS (European Network for Advanced Performance Studies). The

objectives of this project are to establish and test a permanent European network for

advanced business process performance studies in European industry and to develop a

generic set of performance measures to be used in this network. The network will allow

1
enterprises to view performance measurement data from other enterprises all over Europe

and to see their relative position on a league table of performance results.

In recent years, many changes have occurred in the way manufacturing enterprises operate.

Through the use of advanced manufacturing technology, enterprises have moved from

being functionally oriented to being process oriented. Although manufacturing systems

have changed, the way in which they are measured has not. Therefore, there is a need for

new performance measurement systems that take account of these changes in the

manufacturing industry.

This paper reviews traditional performance measurement systems and why they are now

invalid in today’s manufacturing environment. Following on from this, modern

performance measurement systems for World Class Manufacturing (WCM) are discussed

and a brief review of two of these performance measurement systems (TOPP and

AMBITE) is given. Some important issues and guidelines for developing a performance

measurement system are also articulated. Finally, based on these guidelines, a new

performance measurement system, ENAPS, is presented.

Some definitions which may be helpful to the reader are as follows:

A ‘Performance Measure’ is a description of something that can be directly

measured (e.g. number of reworks per day).

A ‘Performance Indicator’ is a description of something that is calculated from

performance measures (e.g. percentage reworks per day per direct employee).

2
 ‘Performance Measurement Data’ are values or results for performance measures

and indicators (e.g. the number of reworks per day = 36 or the percentage reworks

per day per direct employee = 2.4%).

A ‘Performance Measurement System’ is a complete set of performance measures

and indicators derived in a consistent manner according to a set of rules or

guidelines defined in the performance measurement system.

2. Traditional Performance Measurement Systems

Traditional performance measurement systems are frequently based on cost and

management accounting. These techniques were developed in the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries to meet the needs of expanding manufacturing industries. The concepts

were fully formalised in the 1930s and since then have been the basis of manufacturing

performance measurement systems. In recent years, enormous changes have taken place in

technology and production techniques that have made traditional performance measurement

systems (management accounting based) no longer useful. These out-of-date techniques

are at best irrelevant and at worst positively harmful. There are five main problems with

traditional management accounting techniques for performance measurement [Maskell,

1991], namely:

(i) Lack of relevance: Management accounting reports are not directly related to the

manufacturing strategy, are not meaningful for the control of production and distribution

operations and are irrelevant and misleading to pricing decisions.

3
(ii) Cost distortion: Traditional cost accounting is concerned with cost elements. The

pattern of cost elements has changed in recent years, and this detailed analysis is less

important. Also, the distinction between direct and indirect costs (and variable and fixed

costs) is not as rigid as it used to be and, as a result, traditional methods of apportioning

overheads can significantly distort product costs.

(iii) Inflexibility: Traditional management accounting reports do not vary from plant to

plant within an organisation and they do not change over time as business needs change.

Therefore, cost accounting reports are usually received too late to be of value and, as a

result, are usually viewed with disdain by operations managers because they do not help

them with their job and can be used to blame the operations manager when variances are

negative.

(iv) Hindrance to progress in World Class Manufacturing: Traditional methods of

assessing the pay-back on capital projects can impede the introduction of WCM, and can

cause managers to do wasteful and unnecessary tasks to make the figures look good. Also,

concentrating on machine and labour efficiency rates encourages the production of large

batch quantities and cost accounting requires a lot of detailed data that can be costly to

obtain.

(v) Subjection to the needs of financial accounting: Too often cost accounts are

regarded as a subsidiary ledger of financial accounts. To be of value, management

accounting systems must be based on different methods and assumptions than on the

financial accounts. These methods apply to such issues as inventory valuation, overhead

absorption, and accounting periods.

4
According to Umble & Srikanth [1990] the assumptions that management accounting

techniques are based on are invalid, as they are local in scope. These assumptions are listed

below together with the reasons why they are considered invalid.

(a) “The total cost of the system equals the sum of the cost of each operation.” This

assumption is invalid for the allocation of overheads.

(b) The total cost of each operation is proportional to the direct labour for that operation.

Some operations are automated and therefore have no direct labour.

(c) “The total cost for the system, excluding material cost, is proportional to the sum of the

direct labour costs.” Direct labour costs make up only a small proportion of the total cost

for many systems.

(d) “The standard cost procedure, which utilises the calculated overhead/labour ratio, can

be reversed to estimate the impact of any action on the total cost of the system.” If the

calculated overhead/labour ratio is invalid, then the converse must also be invalid.

(e) “In manufacturing operations, the effect of optimising local decisions, as measured by

their impact on the cost of the operation, is to optimise the total system.” Optimising some

local decisions may have a non-optimum effect in other departments.

(f) “The key to reaching the global optimum is achieving local optima.” Some local

optima may be in conflict with other local optima.

Due to these problems of management accounting techniques, performance measurement

systems based on these techniques are considered to be invalid for manufacturing industries

today.

5
3. Modern Performance Measurement Systems

Apart from the problems with traditional performance measurement systems, there are

other reasons why there is a need for new performance measurement systems in

manufacturing industries. These include: customers are requiring higher standards of

quality, performance and flexibility and management techniques used in production plants

are changing significantly. As enterprises introduce world class manufacturing techniques,

they need new methods of performance measurement to control their production plants.

Traditional performance measurement systems are invalid for the measurement of world

class manufacturing practices as they do not supply the business with the required

information to compete in their industry.

As traditional performance measurement systems are based on management accounting

they are primarily concerned with cost. But in today’s manufacturing environment, cost

based measures are no longer the only basis for decision making in enterprises. Enterprises

now require performance measures that are based along other competitive dimensions, such

as time and quality to aid in decision making. The new performance measurement systems

required by world class manufacturing enterprises should have the following characteristics

[Maskell, 1991]:

• They are directly related to the manufacturing strategy.

• They primarily use non-financial measures.

• They vary between locations1.

• They change over time as needs change.

• They are simple and easy to use.

1
Performance measurement systems need be similar at different locations for comparison purposes.

6
 • They provide fast feedback to operators and managers.

• They are intended to foster improvement rather than simply monitor

performance.

Modern performance measures are not newly developed, what is new is the importance

placed on them. They have been around for some time, but only recently have world class

manufacturers begun to replace their cost based performance measurement systems with

ones that truly drive the production process. Since performance measures can also dictate

behaviour, it is very important that they are suitable for the processes they are measuring.

When adopting these modern performance measurement systems, the existing systems must

be abandoned. If new measures are introduced in addition to existing ones, then they will

not have their intended usefulness and impact. They will either be ignored, because people

are more familiar with the old measures, or both sets of measures will be used and the

enterprise will not gain the coherence and focus that the new measures are intended to

offer. The introduction of new performance measurement systems should go hand in hand

with the introduction of new manufacturing techniques. For example, before business

processes can be re-engineered there must a clear strategy (manufacturing strategy) for the

enterprise and suitable performance measures must be in place to measure the impact of the

re-engineering process. Strategy and new performance measures are prerequisites to

Business Process Re-engineering. A brief description of two modern performance

measurement systems (the TOPP system and the AMBITE system) will now follow.

3.1 The TOPP System

One example of a new performance measurement system is the TOPP system which was

developed by SINTEF [1992] in Norway in partnership with the Norwegian Institute of

7
Technology (NTH), the Norwegian Federation of Engineering Industries (TBL) and 56

participating enterprises. TOPP is a questionnaire that is used to determine how an

enterprise is performing in all the areas of manufacturing. It is divided into three parts.

The first part is used to obtain an overview of the enterprise and is answered by one person.

The second part is used to understand how the enterprise operates and might be answered

by twenty different individuals. Finally, the third part is concerned with focusing on

twenty specific areas within the enterprise that may need improvement, such as marketing,

design, technological planning, product development, production planning and control,

manufacturing/assembly, financial management, personnel management, information

technology and improvement processes.

The TOPP system views performance measurement along three dimensions. These are (i)

Effectiveness - satisfaction of customer needs, (ii) Efficiency - economic and optimal use of

enterprise resources and (iii) Ability to Change - strategic awareness to handle changes.

Answers to each question are qualitative (i.e. on scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is poor and 7 is

excellent). Enterprises are requested to answer each question for their status today, and for

their expected status in two years from now. They are also requested to rate how important

each question is to the enterprise’s competitiveness on a three letter scale, where: N = No

importance, M = Medium importance and G = Great importance.

The TOPP system is very large and very time consuming to fill out. It is over sixty pages

long and there is about fifteen to twenty questions on each page. Each question also

requires three ratings (status today, future status and relative importance). Therefore, in

total about 3,000 assessments need to be made to fill out one complete questionnaire. The

TOPP system is a generic questionnaire and, therefore, the performance measures in the

TOPP questionnaire are not directly related to the strategy or customer requirements of

8
enterprises. Also, the hierarchical relationships between the performance measures are not

identified. The TOPP questionnaire is qualitative, based on the views of individuals not on

actual measurements and, therefore, answers can be biased. The TOPP questionnaire is

very thorough and makes enterprises think about areas of manufacturing they may not have

though important before. Anything that the enterprise measures, it will want to improve,

especially performance areas that are marked with ‘G’ (i.e. great importance). Requesting

enterprises to assess their current status and their future status is a strong point of the TOPP

questionnaire. If enterprises wish to estimate their likely future status to be better than their

current status in a particular area, then they must realise that they must introduce an

improvement project for that area. Since all enterprises use the same questionnaire, TOPP

is suitable for making comparisons between enterprises.

3.2 The AMBITE System

A second example of a modern performance measurement system is the AMBITE

(Advanced Manufacturing Business Implementation Tool for Europe) performance

measurement framework [Bradley, 1996]. The objective of this framework is to develop a

technique that senior management can use to assess the impact of the strategic decisions

made by their enterprise. The framework provides a means of translating the business plan

of the enterprise (i.e. critical success factors) into a set of performance measures. The

performance measures will be directly related to the strategy of the enterprise and will also

be process oriented. The AMBITE framework uses the business model, shown in figure 1,

to describe a manufacturing enterprise.

9
 Marketing
Product and
Process
Design
Design
Co-engineering Co-ordination

Suppliers Manufacturing Customers

Vendor Customer
Supply Order Fulfilment

Production
Planning &
Control
= Macro Business Process

Figure 1: The AMBITE Business Model for Manufacturing Enterprises

(Bradley, 1996).

Each of the five macro business processes (customer order fulfilment, vendor supply,

design co-ordination, co-engineering and manufacturing) in figure 1 are mapped onto five

macro measures of performance (time, cost, quality, flexibility, and the environment). This

is done for the Make To Stock (MTS), Assemble To Order (ATO), Make To Order (MTO)

and Engineer To Order (ETO) manufacturing environments, a typology described by

McMahon and Browne [1993]. This mapping produces the AMBITE performance

measurement framework as shown in figure 2.

Customer Order
Fulfilment

Vendor Supply

Manufacturing

Design
Co-ordination
ETO
MTO
Co-engineering ATO
MTS
Time Cost Quality Flexibility Environment

Figure 2: The AMBITE Performance Measurement Framework

(Bradley, 1996).

10
Mapping the five macro business processes to the five macro measures of performance,

produces a set of twenty-five strategic performance indicators (SPIs) for each

manufacturing typology. The AMBITE method takes a critical success factor (CSF) of an

enterprise and maps it on to the AMBITE framework. This produces the strategic

performance indicators relevant to the enterprise. These performance indicators can then

be broken down into many lower level performance indicators. The precise break down of

each performance indicator will be different for every enterprise, thus producing a unique

set of customised performance indicators for every enterprise.

The AMBITE performance measurement framework is complete in that, once an enterprise

knows its critical success factors (based on its business strategy) it should not be too

difficult to develop a consistent set of performance indicators for that enterprise that are

directly related to the CSFs. The AMBITE framework produces low level specific

performance indicators through the decomposition of high level performance indicators.

The hierarchical relationships between the performance indicators are defined by this

decomposition. It is a process oriented, generic framework and, therefore, it can be applied

to almost any enterprise of any size. The framework produces a customised set of

performance indicators for each enterprise that uses the framework. This makes it difficult

to make comparisons between enterprises, especially with lower level performance

indicators. The high level performance indicators for many enterprises will appear very

similar, but they will be made up of very different lower level performance indicators .

Therefore, comparisons at the highest level (i.e. 25 SPIs) are valid, but caution should be

taken if comparing performance indicators at lower levels.

Apart from the two performance measurement systems (TOPP and AMBITE) described

above, there are other performance measurement systems available for use by

11
manufacturing industries today. Some of these other performance measurement systems

are: the EFQM model [EFQM, 1996], the ECOGRAI system [Doumeingts et Al., 1994],

the Balanced Scorecard approach [Kaplan & Norton, 1992] and the PMQ [Dixon et al.,

1990].

4. Guidelines for Performance Measurement Systems

As well as the guidelines laid out by Maskell [1991] previously, many other authors have

views on how performance measurement systems should be developed. Russell [1992]

states that the fact that the enterprise is committing time and resources to the development

of a new performance measurement system provides motivation and credibility to the

exercise. This ensures that: “cherry picking” is avoided; business processes which are

important are properly measured; the linkages and conflicts are made visible and managed,

not hidden under the table and the performance measures are relatively stable allowing a

managed evolution as business needs change.

Dixon et al. [1990] argue that irrespective of the competitive priorities enterprises pursue,

successful measurement systems will share five characteristics. These are: (i) mutually

supportive and consistent with the business operating goals, objectives, critical success

factors and programs, (ii) convey information through as few and as simple a set of

measures as possible, (iii) focus on measures that customers can see, (iv) allows all

members of the organisation to understand how their decisions and activities affect the

entire business and (v) support organisational learning and continuous improvement.

Bradley [1996] claims that while modern performance measurement systems should have

the characteristics defined by Dixon et al., some other aspects need to be present in a new

12
performance measurement system. He argues that a performance measurement system

should also meet the following four requirements: (i) a framework, that allows a top down

decomposition to successive levels of greater detail, that allows the strategy and/or

customer requirements to be translated into a set of critical performance measures and that

identifies all the business processes; (ii) a business process focus; (iii) performance

measures, that are process oriented, that are quantitative in nature, that are related to a set

of high level macro measures and that are related to either the strategy of the enterprise or

its customers requirements and (iv) an enterprise strategy and/or customer requirement

perspective. Roth et al. [1990] state that performance measures should provide feedback on

the gaps between ‘best-in-class’ and the manufacturing unit’s own performance over time

and that they should accelerate organisational learning and continuous improvement.

Another method of filtering a large set of performance measures is by using the ‘Analytic

Hierarchy Process’ [Saaty, 1980] to identify critical performance measures. Critical

performance measures are performance measures that are strongly related to one or more

CSFs or customer requirements. This is achieved by using a ‘Performance Measurement

Table’ and a set of ‘Quality Function Deployment’ symbols to identify the relationships.

All of these authors provide very useful guidelines for developing performance

measurement systems, but most of them seem to have neglected one issue which is also

important. In today’s manufacturing environment, enterprises are working together more

and more, so called extended enterprises are forming and dissolving, partnerships and

strategic alliances are commonplace. Therefore, a standard set of performance measures

and indicators, that could be applied to many different enterprises, would be advantageous.

This standard set of performance measures and indicators would also be useful for

comparison between enterprises. This type of comparison is know as ‘Performance

13
Benchmarking’. Of course, having a standard set of performance measures and indicators

is contradictory to having performance measures and indicators that are customised to the

strategy or customer requirements of a particular enterprise. Therefore, both kinds of

performance measures and indicators should be accommodated. High level performance

measures and indicators should be suitable for both comparison purposes and to support the

strategy or customer requirements, while lower level performance measures and indicators

would not be suitable for comparison purposes, but would still support the strategy or

customer requirements.

4.1 The Different views of Performance Measures

Certain people prefer information about performance measurement presented to them in

certain ways. For example, some financial people prefer performance measurement data in

terms of monetary units (i.e. costs), such as ‘the amount of overhead cost’, while other

financial people would prefer performance measurement data in terms of ratios and

percentages, such as ‘overhead cost as a percentage of operating expense, and personnel

people may prefer performance measurement data in terms of people (i.e. per employee),

such as ‘overhead cost per direct employee’. Many different people might have many

different views on what to measure and how to express these measures, but it is obvious

that we cannot measure everything in every possible way. What these people are looking

for are customised performance indicators which are local in scope and may be in conflict

with each other. A performance measurement system should measure only a core set of

performance measures and a few key performance indicators.

The relationships between the performance measures and indicators in a performance

measurement system should be examined and documented. Some performance measures

14
and indicators may have a direct effect on others. For example, decreasing the time for a

particular process could be achieved by spending a lot of money and, therefore, increasing

the cost of the process. Very often trade-offs need to be made to maintain performance

indicators at acceptable levels according to the strategy or customer requirements of the

enterprise. Therefore, when a change is made, all performance measures and indicators

should be measured to assess the impact of this change. The change may have improved

one performance indicator and decreased performance in another performance indicator.

Therefore, what is important to the enterprise as a whole must prevail.

4.2 Necessary Information about Performance Measures

There is certain information that needs to be stored about performance measures which

should make them more useful. These items of information are detailed in table 1.

Table 1: Information that should be stored about Performance Measures.

Information Description Example

Name A brief description of what is to measured or Distribution lead time

calculated.

Description A detailed description of what exactly the Distribution lead time = average

performance measure or indicator is supposed to time for distribution of an order

measure, so that it is not left up to the interpretation from arrival of the order at

of the person performing the measurement. outgoing stock until delivery to the

customer.

Unit The dimension along which the performance Days, months, IR£s, ECUs, percent,

measure or indicator is measured. km, etc.

Acronym A code, 2-5 letters long. DLT = distribution lead time.

Equation Formula to calculate the performance indicator. DLT = packaging time + storage

15
 time + transport time.

Target A desired performance level, a goal to aspire to. The DLT target is 5 days.

Position At what level in the hierarchy of the performance DLT is a process level performance

measurement system does the performance measure indicator belonging to the ‘Order

or indicator belong. Fulfilment’ process.

Where In which area of the enterprise is the information DLT can be obtained from the

necessary to produce a result for the performance shipping department.

measure or indicator?

Responsibility The position of the person who should perform the DLT is to be measured by the

measurement. shipping manager.

There is also certain information that should be stored with the performance measurement

data (the results of performance measures or indicators). This information is listed in table

2.

Table 2: Information that should be stored about Performance Measurement Data.

Information Description Example

Result For quantitative performance measures or The DLT is 14 days.

indicators this is a number and for qualitative

performance measures or indicator this is a rating,

such as good, poor, etc.

Reason/Notes If any unusual events occurred that would affect the A truck broke down, which added a

result of the performance measure or indicator, they day to the average DLT

should be documented and kept with the result of

the performance measure or indicator.

Time Stamp The period of time that the performance measure or The average DLT is for one year

indicator is for. This can be a duration or a start from 1/1/97 to 31/12/97.

date and end date.

16
All of the above information would make up a complete result for a performance measure

or indicator. A performance measurement system which encourages the recording of all of

this information, about performance measures, indicators and their results, is the ENAPS

performance measurement system.

5. The ENAPS Performance Measurement System

Based on the other performance measurement systems and the guidelines laid out in this

paper a new performance measurement system has been developed. This new performance

measurement system is the ENAPS (European Network for Advanced Performance

Studies) performance measurement system. Currently involved in the ENAPS project are

five research partners (SINTEF, CIMRU, BIBA, GRAI and TUE) and five industrial

partners (TBL, AMT, Volkswagen, and AUGRAI and ITC) in Norway, Ireland, Germany,

France and The Netherlands respectively. ENAPS is currently under development, but a lot

of work has already been carried out in the area of performance measurement. The ENAPS

business model is shown in figure 3 and reflects a future view of a manufacturing enterprise

as it incorporates the end of life use of products.

17
 Obtaining Customer
Product Development Marketing
Commitment
Design

Production
Planning & Discard
Control

Supplier Manuf. Assembly Distributor Customer Recycler

1 2 3

Service
Provider

Order Fulfilment Key: 1. Reuse

Material Flow
Customer Service
2. Re-manufacture
3. Recycle Technical Information Flow
4. Discard Business Information Flow

Figure 3: The extended ENAPS Business Model

From this business model, ENAPS has suggested three levels of hierarchy for defining

performance indicators. These are: ‘Enterprise Level’, ‘Process Level’ and ‘Function

Level’. The performance measures used in calculating these performance indicators are

measured from all over the enterprise under the following eight headings: ‘Accounts’ (13

measures), ‘Product Development’ (20 measures), ‘Marketing and Sales’ (22 measures),

‘Planning and Production’ (20 measures), ‘Customer Service’ (8 measures), ‘Purchasing’

(11 measures), ‘Personnel’ (16 measures) and ‘Other’ (7 measures).

Currently, there are 117 performance measures (shown in Appendix A) used in calculating

the performance indicators in the ENAPS performance measurement system. All of the

‘Enterprise Level’ performance indicators should be suitable for every manufacturing

enterprise. Nearly all of the ‘Process Level’ performance indicators should be suitable for

nearly all manufacturing enterprises. Finally, most of the ‘Function Level’ performance

indicators should be suitable for most manufacturing enterprises.

18
The ‘Enterprise Level’ performance indicators are very general indicators. They give an

overview of the size and financial position of an enterprise. ENAPS has defined 16

‘Enterprise Level’ performance indicators. Some examples of ‘Enterprise Level’

performance indicators are: Return on capital employed, Margin, Profit, Operating

expense, Sales per employee and Inventory turnover.

The ‘Process Level’ performance indicators are used to determine the performance of the

processes that are defined in the ENAPS framework. The ENAPS performance

measurement system has identified two types of processes. These two processes are

‘Business Processes’ and ‘Secondary Processes’, and are described below.

‘Business Processes’ are the value adding processes involved in the creation and

production of a product and its sale and transfer to a buyer. ENAPS has identified four

business processes and these are described below.

(i) Customer Service: All activities involved in providing after-sales service, including

product take-back.

(ii) Obtaining Customer Commitment: All activities involved from market analysis to

sales.

(iii) Order Fulfilment: From receipt of an order until the customer has received and paid

for the product.

(iv) Product Development: All activities involved in researching, designing, engineering

and releasing products to manufacturing.

‘Secondary Processes’ are the non-value adding processes of an enterprise. ENAPS has

identified two groups of secondary processes and these are described below.

19
(i) Support Processes: are processes that support the business and evolution processes

and each other, while providing the resources and infrastructure necessary to perform these

processes, such as Financial Management and Human Resource Management.

(ii) Evolution Processes: provide means for the enterprise to achieve its long-term

strategic objectives through managing and planning the evolution of the enterprise and its

environment, such as Human Resource Development and Strategic Planning.

Each of the six processes has a certain number of performance indicators assigned to them

according to the following list: Customer Service (6 indicators), Obtaining Customer

Commitment (13 indicators), Order Fulfilment (26 indicators), Product Development (16

indicators), Support (10 indicators) and Evolution (8 indicators).

Together with the 16 ‘Enterprise Level’ indicators, there are currently 95 performance

indicators (shown in Appendix B) in the ENAPS measurement framework. Examples of

‘Process Level’ performance indicators are: Product development efficiency (Product

Development), Product development cost (Product Development), Outgoing delivery

quality (Order Fulfilment), Average complaint resolution time (Customer Service),

Customer base growth (Obtaining Customer Commitment), Preventative maintenance cost

(Support) and Improvement effort (Evolution).

These ‘Process Level’ performance indicators where developed from ‘Function Level’

performance indicators that are used to determine the performance of the functions (or sub-

processes) that ENAPS has defined. Each of the six processes has a set of functions

associated with them. The ENAPS functions, and the processes they belong to, are listed in

figure 4, and this breakdown is known as the ‘ENAPS Generic Framework’.

20
 BUSINESS PROCESSES SECONDARY PROCESSES

CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPPORT

•After sales-service •Maintenance
•Product take back •Financial management
•Human resource management
OBTAINING CUSTOMER •Information management
COMMITMENT •Internal control of health,
•Market Development (Analysis?) environment and safety
•Marketing and Sales
•Tendering EVOLUTION
•Continuous business process improvement
ORDER FULFILMENT •Development of external relations
•Distribution and outbound logistics •Human resource development
•Invoicing and payment •Product research *
•Manufacturing and assembly •Production technology research
•Order processing •Strategic Planning
•Procurement and inbound logistics •Supplier base development
•Production planning & control

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
•Co-engineering
•Process Engineering and design * It is possible for a function to belong
•Product Engineering and design in more than one process.
•Product Research *

Figure 4: The ENAPS Generic Framework

No ‘Function Level’ performance indicators are given in the ENAPS performance

measurement system, as the generic ‘Function Level’ indicators were grouped under their

process headings and the other ‘Function Level’ indicators were deemed to be too specific

for comparison purposes. The generic performance measures and indicators for each

process and function were developed with the following six dimensions of measurement in

mind: time, cost, quality, volume, flexibility and environment, but not all of these

dimensions are relevant for every process or function. It was also decided that all of the

performance measures and indicators would be quantitative (based on objective real data,

not subjective ratings) and that the performance indicators would be calculated using only

the performance measures defined. The performance indicators need to be quantitative for

comparison purposes. When comparing performance indicators, it is wise to compare

within the same manufacturing environment and the same industrial sector. Enterprises can

also compare performance indicators by the size of their enterprise (e.g. turnover or number

of employees) or by their geographical location (e.g. in one country or in a group of

countries).

21
The ENAPS performance measurement system attempts to combine the best ideas from

previous performance measurement systems. It has a generic set of performance measures

and indicators (like the TOPP system) and uses a process oriented, top-down approach to

developing the performance measures and indicators based on a sound business model (like

the AMBITE approach). There are a large number of performance measures and indicators

in the ENAPS approach, but this is necessary to make it relevant to most enterprises.

Enterprises are not expected to use all the performance measures and indicators , but are

encouraged to use as many as possible.

The remainder of this paper reviews the ENAPS system against the ‘guidelines for

performance measurement systems’ previously mentioned.

The ENAPS measures and indicators meet the guidelines laid out by Russell [1992] in the

previous section, because ‘cherry picking’ of performance measures is not encouraged and

important business processes are measured in the ENAPS system. The ENAPS measures

and indicators do not directly state the relationships between them, but all of the

performance measures are used in the formulae to calculate the performance indicators.

Therefore, each performance measure has at least one performance indicator relating to it

and management is discouraged from creating their own measures or indicators to avoid

sub-optimisation. The ENAPS measures and indicators are stable over time, but should be

reviewed every six months. As Dixon et al. [1990] recommend, the ENAPS indicators

convey information through as few and as simple a set of measures as possible. The

ENAPS measures and indicators do not directly support the critical success factors of

enterprises, but do support organisational learning and continuous improvement. The

ENAPS system provides a complete set of measures and indicators, so that members of the

enterprise can understand how their decisions and activities affect the entire business.

22
The ENAPS performance measurement system is based on a sound framework allowing for

top down decomposition of measures and indicators, which follows the recommendations

of Bradley [1996]. The ENAPS approach is process oriented and the measures and

indicators are quantitative and related to high level macro measures of performance of time,

cost, quality, etc. The ENAPS measures and indicators are not related to specific enterprise

strategies or customer requirements for comparison purposes. Consistent with Roth et al.

[1990], the ENAPS indicators promote continuous improvement, as a high score on a

particular performance indicators implies an improvement in performance in that area. By

using a standard set of indicators, feedback on the gaps between ‘best-in-class’ and the

manufacturing unit’s own performance over time can be determined. Using the Analytic

Hierarchy Process [Kelly ,1995], an enterprise could check the suitability of the ENAPS

measures and indicators to measure critical success factors.

6. Conclusions

In this paper we have argued that traditional performance measurement systems, based on

management accounting techniques, fail to meet the needs of world class manufacturing

enterprises. There are five main problems with management accounting techniques that

render them invalid for use in a performance measurement system. These are: lack of

relevance, cost distortion, inflexibility, hindrance to progress in World Class

Manufacturing and subjection to the needs of financial accounting. As a result of this, there

is a need for new performance measurement systems that can provide enterprises with the

information they require to make business decisions in today’s manufacturing environment.

These new performance measurement systems should have the following characteristics:

they are directly related to the manufacturing strategy, they primarily use non-financial

measures, they change over time as needs change, they provide fast feedback to operators

23
and managers and they are intended to foster improvement rather than simply monitor

performance. The TOPP performance measurement system is a comprehensive, but

lengthy questionnaire, that measures the performance of twenty areas of the enterprise. The

AMBITE performance measurement system is a top-down approach to developing

performance indicators that are directly related to the strategy or customer requirements of

an enterprise. Therefore, this approach is not the most suitable for comparison purposes.

Many authors have provided useful guidelines for developing performance measurement

systems which should be taken into account. Different people want different information

from performance measures and indicators to serve their own local goals. This practice

should be discouraged, as what is important to the enterprise as a whole must prevail.

Based on other performance measurement systems and the guidelines laid out in this paper,

a new performance measurement system has been developed: the ENAPS performance

measurement system. The ENAPS approach has a generic set of performance measures

and indicators that were developed using a top-down approach from enterprise level to

process level to function level. The ENAPS performance measurement system performs

well when assessed against the guidelines previously laid out by a number of authors. The

main motivation behind the ENAPS project was to develop performance indicators suitable

for comparison between enterprises.

24
References
Bradley, P., 1996, “A Performance Measurement Approach to the Re-engineering of Manufacturing
Enterprises”, PhD Thesis, University College Galway.

Dixon, J. R., Nanni, A. J. & Vollmann, T. E., 1990, “The New Performance Challenge”, Business One
Irwin, Illinois.

Doumeingts, G., Clave, F. & Ducq, Y., 1994, “ECOGRAI - A Method to design and to implement
Performance Indicators Systems using GRAI Approach”, Proc. of the 27th ISATA: Dedicated Conference on
Lean/AGILE Manufacturing for the Automotive Industries , Aachen, Germany, November, 1994.

EFQM, 1996, “Self-assessment Guidelines for Companies”, European Foundation for Quality Management,
Brussels, Belgium.

Kaplan, R. B. & Norton, D. P., 1992 “The Balanced Scorecard - measures that drive performance”, Harvard
Business Review, Boston, Massachusetts, Jan-Feb, 1992.

Maskell, B. H., 1991, “Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing”, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

McMahon, C. & Browne, J., 1993, “CAD/CAM - From Principles to Practice”, Addison-Wesley, London,
Great Britain.

Riggs, J. L. & Felix, G. H., 1983, “Productivity By Objectives”, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey.

Roth, Aleda V., Giffi, Craig A. & Seal, Gregory M., 1990, “Operating strategies for the 1990s: elements
comprising world-class manufacturing”, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences and Business One
Irwin, Illinois.

Russell, R., 1992, “The Role of Performance Measurement in Manufacturing Excellence”, Proceedings of the
27th Annual Conference of British Production and Inventory Control Society (BPICS).

Saaty, T. L., 1980, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, McGraw-Hill, New York.

SINTEF, 1992, “TOPP: A Productivity Program for Manufacturing Industry”, NTNF/NTH, Trondheim,
Norway.

Umble, M. M. & Srikanth, M. L., 1990, “Synchronous Manufacturing - Principles for World Class
Excellence”, South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati, Ohio.

Bibliography
Bradley, P. & Jordan, P., 1996, “ENAPS Business Model”, ENAPS WP3.2 Final Deliverable, CIMRU,
University College Galway.

Devlin, J, 1997, “Benchmarking: An Intranet Solution”, M.Eng.Sc Thesis, University College Galway.

Browne J. & Jackson S., 1995, “AMBITE: Advanced Manufacturing Business Implementation Tool for
Europe”, AMBITE 12 Monthly Report, CIMRU, University College Galway.

Flapper, S. D. P., Fortuin, L. & Stoop, P. P. M., 1994, “Towards consistent performance management
systems”, Internal Paper, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.

Kelly, B., 1995, “An Analysis Tool to Support Strategic Manufacturing Decision Making”, M.Eng.Sc Thesis,
University College Galway.

25
Appendix A: A List of the ENAPS Performance Measures
Measure
Accounts:
1 Sales (Turnover)
2 Fixed assets
3 Current assets
4 Purchased material cost
5 Other costs
6 Equity
7 Receivables
8 Current liabilities
9 Opening stock
10 Closing stock
11 External capital
12 Total liabilities
13 Profit from joint ventures
Product Development:
1 Number of active products
2 Average new product
development lead time
3 Average planned product
development lead time
4 Product engineering and design
cost
5 Product-related process
engineering and design cost
6 Product research cost
7 Number of new products
8 Number of new product variants
9 Number of unsuccessful new
products
10 Total number of customer
complaint-related design changes
11 Engineering drawings change cost
Table A: The ENAPS Performance Measures.
Value Unit Definition
ECU The total amount of money received from customers during the last
period.
ECU The present value of investment goods buildings; book value (or balance-
sheet value) machines, cars, etc.; purchasing value.
ECU The present value of inventories (material value, added value NOT
included), cash and other current assets.
ECU The total amount of money paid to suppliers during the last period.
ECU Labour/personnel costs, rent, interest, etc. paid during the last period.
ECU Shareholders Capital (Total Assets - External Capital).
ECU The present value of bills to be paid by customers.
ECU The present value of bills to be paid to suppliers.
ECU Value of stock at the beginning of last period in terms of material costs
only.
ECU Value of stock at the end of last period in terms of material costs only.
ECU Loans, mortgages, etc. Long term and short term.
ECU Current Liabilities + External Capital.
ECU The profit made during the last period which can be attributed to joint
ventures with other enterprises.
Number Total number of active products where an active product is one which is
listed in the product sales catalogue or any product which can currently be
delivered to a customer. This should not include product variants.
Months The average time from product concept specification document until
production ramp up, where "ramp up" means to reach full expected
volume production, for new products launched during the last period.
Months The average planned product development lead time (as defined above)
for all new products launched last year.
ECU The cost of product engineering and design. Includes labour and
equipment but not overheads.
ECU The cost of developing a production process aimed specifically at
producing a product. Includes labour and equipment costs but not
overheads.
ECU The cost associated with product research including labour and
equipment. This includes both basic and applied research cost.
Number Total number of new products that were launched during the last period
where a new product is one which involves a major development effort
and includes new technology or a new combination of technologies…
… A product is considered "new" if it has been developed within the last
three years and if it is published in the product catalogue as a new product
and not simply a variant of an existing product.
Number Total number of product variants or modified product models that were
launched during the last period.
Number The number of launched new products which had to be withdrawn earlier
than planned. (Number of premature product deaths) that occurred during
the last period.
Number The number of design changes for new products in the last period which
were directly related to one or several customer complaints.
ECU The total cost of labour for all engineering drawing changes made during
the last period.
26
12 Warranty costs for new products
13 Number of products launched late
in the last three years
14 Number of patents granted in the
last period
15 Number of patents held
16 Number of co-engineered
products
17 Number of components recycled
18 Total number of components
produced
19 Number of part types with
multiple usage
20 Total number of part types
Marketing and Sales:
1 Number of new customers
2 Total number of customers
3 The percentage of customers
accounting for 80% of sales
volume in the last period
4 Market share for main product
5 Marketing cost
6 Sales of products receiving an
ecological certificate
7 Sales to new customers
8 Sales resulting from tenders
9 Tender preparation lead time
10 Tender value
11 Cost of preparing tenders
12 Successful tenders
13 Number of tenders
14 Lost customers
15 Customer visits
16 Number of invoices sent to
customers
17 Number of on-time customer
payments
18 Value of cancelled orders
ECU Total cost of recalling and repairing new products covered by warranty
during the last period. This includes labour, materials, transportation and
administrative costs.
Number The number of products which failed to meet the initial scheduled launch
date.
Number The number of patents granted for technology or products developed by
your enterprise in the last period.
Number The total number of patents being held by your enterprise at present.
Number The number of active products which were partially designed by
suppliers. This does not include consultants.
Number The total number of product components that were recycled in the last
period where recycled means re-used in new or second-hand products or
recycled for reclamation of base materials.
Number The total number of components produced in the last period across all
products. This will be used to calculate the ratio of recycled components
to components produced.
Number Total number of part types which appear in more than one bill of
materials.
Number The sum of all the part numbers minus the number of products. That is all
part types that have potential for multiple usage.
Number The number of customers who ordered within the last period but had not
ordered within the last three years.
Number The total number of active customers on the customer list, where an active
customer is one that has placed an order within the last three years.
% Sort all customers according to sales and then sum the sales per customer
while counting the number of customers. When you reach 80% of total
sales note the number of customers accounting for that amount and divide
it by the total number of customers.
% The approximate market share that your main product (the product which
results in most sales for your enterprise) held last period, where this
market refers to the enterprise's target market which can be domestic,
European or global.
ECU The total cost of all marketing including labour costs, advertising costs
external service costs and equipment but not overheads.
ECU The total value of sales of products which have received your country's
"green" label or another ecological certificate. When a European standard
becomes available this should be used.
ECU The sum of the value of sales to new customers during the last period.
ECU The sum of the value of all sales resulting from tenders during the last
period.
Weeks The average tender preparation lead time.
ECU The sum of the value of each tender made during the last period.
ECU The sum of all costs of preparing tenders during the last period. This
includes labour and equipment costs but not overheads.
Number The number of tenders during the last period which resulted in a customer
order.
Number The number of tenders prepared and submitted during the last period.
Number The number of customers who were expected to order but did not order
during the last period.
Number Total number of times that marketing personnel from your enterprise
visited a customer site or that customers visited your site during the last
period.
Number The total number of invoices sent to customers during the last period
where each invoice may contain several line items but is still just one
single invoice.
Number The total number of customer payments received on or before the
promised payment date in the last period where all items on the invoice
are fully paid for.
ECU The summed value of all cancelled orders in the last period where a
27

19 Products sold
20 Number of customer suggestions
21 Number of implemented customer
suggestions
22 Sales of new products
Planning and Production
1 Number of customer orders
2 Number of on-time outgoing
deliveries
3 Number of incomplete outgoing
deliveries
4 Number of outgoing deliveries
containing defective products
5 Average order fulfilment lead
time
6 Average commercial lead time
7 Average production and assembly
lead time
8 Average distribution lead time
9 Commercial costs for order
fulfilment
10 Total production cost
11 Inventory costs
12 Distribution costs
13 Average cost of work in progress
14 Total production hours
15 Cost of scrap material
16 Re-work hours
17 CO2 production
18 Mass environmentally unfriendly
material produced
cancelled order is one which appeared in your enterprises order
processing system but subsequently had to be deleted before delivery due
to customer request.
Number Total number of product units sold in the last period where sold implies
that payment has been received.
Number Total number of customer suggestions for product or process
improvement.
Number Total number of implemented customer suggestions for product or process
improvement.
ECU The total value of sales during the last period from new products, i.e.
products which have been introduced in the last three years and include
new technology or new combination of technologies.
Number The total number of customer orders during the last period where each
customer order may contain several line items (requests for individual
quantities of different products).
Number The total number of deliveries from your enterprise to a customer during
the last period which were delivered on or not more than two days before
the date specified by the customer for delivery.
Number The total number of incomplete deliveries from your enterprise to a
customer during the last period which contained too few items or the
wrong product. A delivery may be made in two or more batches but still
constitutes a single delivery.
Number The total number of deliveries from your enterprise to a customer during
the last period which contained defective products. A delivery may be
made in two or more batches but still constitutes a single delivery.
Days The average time across all products from receipt of an order to delivery
of that order to the customer and to installation where appropriate.
Days Average time taken for order processing and production planning. This
begins at receipt of an order and ends when the order is released to the
shop floor for production.
Days Average time for production of an order starting at release of an order to
the shop floor until that order has been fully produced and transferred to
outgoing stock. This includes waiting times + production time + internal
transport.
Days Average time for distribution of an order from arrival of the order at
outgoing stock until the delivery (and installation where appropriate) to
the customer site. This includes packaging + storage + transport to
customer.
ECU The cost of order processing and production planning. The costs incurred
by all the activities from receipt of an order to release of the order to the
shop floor for production.
ECU The cost of production in terms of direct labour costs, equipment and
maintenance but not overheads.
ECU The total of all costs related to the storage of inventory including
materials and finished products.
ECU The cost of distributing finished products including labour and transport
costs.
ECU The value of work in progress (in terms of materials and semi-finished
product) at the beginning of the period + the value of work in progress at
the end of the period divided by 2.
Number The total number of person-hours during the last period spent on
production. This includes production effort and time spent on internal
transport.
ECU The total value of the material and components scrapped in the last period
where the value is measured in terms of the purchase value of the
materials or components.
Number The total number of person-hours spent re-working products or
components in the last period.
Metre3 The volume of CO2 produced by your enterprise in the last period.
Kilograms Environmentally-unfriendly material can be classified according to the
current country standards (Standard not available yet: When standard
28

19 Mass of product produced
20 Cost of energy
Customer Service:
1 Number of products received
back due to faults
2 Number of product units taken
back for recycling or re-
manufacture
3 Cost of product takeback
4 Product takeback revenue
5 Income from after-sales service
6 Average complaint response time
7 Average complaint resolution
time
8 Number of customer complaints
Purchasing
1 Number of active suppliers
2 Certified suppliers
3 Number of purchase orders
4 Number of incoming deliveries
5 Number of complete incoming
deliveries
6 Number of incoming deliveries
received on time
7 Number of incoming deliveries
containing defective parts
8 Average material procurement
lead time
9 Purchase value of parts rejected at
incoming inspection
10 Number of suppliers visited
11 Number of on-time payments to
suppliers
becomes available this measure may be used).
Kilograms The total mass of material in the products and packaging produced by
your enterprise.
ECU The total cost of energy used by production in the last period. This
includes the cost of gas, electricity or oil.
Number The total number of product units received back during the last period by
your enterprise due to faults in the product. These products may be
recalled by your enterprise or returned by a customer.
Number The total number of complete product units taken back during the last
period by your enterprise for recycling.
ECU Total cost of product takeback during the last period where products are
taken back for recycling or re-manufacturing. The costs include labour
(including disassembly), equipment and transportation.
ECU Total revenue generated from product takeback during the last period.
ECU The total income generated by after-sales services in the last period.
After-sales service is defined as service activities following receipt of
payment for the initial sale.
Days The average time taken from when a customer complaint is received to
when the complaint is acknowledged by your enterprise. To respond
within the same day means a value of 1, to respond the next day means a
value of 2 etc. The maximum performance is 1.
Days The average time taken from when a customer makes a complaint to when
the problem that the customer is complaining about is fully resolved and
the customer is satisfied.
Number Total number of customer complaints during the last period.
Number The total number of suppliers which are currently supplying your
enterprise or having supplied your enterprise within the last three years.
Number Total number of active suppliers with quality system certification.
Acceptable are: ISO-9000, BS 5750.
Number The total number of purchase orders issued during the last period where
each purchase order may include several line items but still represents one
single purchase order.
Number The total number of deliveries to your enterprise by suppliers in the last
period.
Number The number of deliveries that have the exact amount of material as
requested on the Purchase Order.
Number The number of deliveries that are received on or before the day specified
on the Purchase Order.
Number The total number of deliveries from suppliers which contained defective
material or parts.
Days This starts from the determination of material requirements until the
material is on the shop floor in the location required to be ready for
production. Includes material planning and procurement + transportation
+ receipt check and store + picking.
ECU The sum of the value of all parts (material or components) rejected at
incoming inspection.
Number The number of suppliers to whom employees of your enterprise visited
during last period.
Number The total number of payments to suppliers which were received by the
supplier on or before the promised date.
29
 Personnel
1 Average number of employees
2 Total wages
3 Number of person-days lost due
to absenteeism
4 Maximum person-days available
5 Number of departed employees
6 Number of new employees
7 Overtime cost
8 Average number of employees
involved in product research and
development
9 Average number employees
involved in marketing
10 Average number of employees
involved in project teams
11 Training and educational cost
12 Average total working days for an
employee
13 Average time spent on training for
each employee
14 Cost of incentive schemes
15 Person-hours spent at
management team meetings
16 Management team person-hours
spent on strategy
Others
1 System downtime
2 Number of injuries
3 Cost of preventative maintenance
4 Number of employee suggestions
5 Machine downtime
6 Maximum available machine
hours
7 Cost of improvement projects
Number Average number of full-time equivalent employees, regardless of the
contract over the last period.
ECU The total cost of wages, salaries and benefits (pensions, insurance etc.) for
all employees in the last period.
Number The total number of person-days lost during the last period due to
absenteeism.
Number The maximum possible number of person-days available during the last
period (excluding overtime). Total average number of employees
multiplied by the number of person-days per employee.
Number The total number of employees who left the enterprise for any reason
other than retirement during the last period.
Number The total number of new employees who joined the enterprise during the
last period.
ECU The total labour cost of overtime for the enterprise during the last period.
Number The average number of employees directly involved in product
development projects within your enterprise during the last period.
Number The average number of employees directly involved in marketing and
obtaining customer commitment within your enterprise over the last
period.
Number The average number of employees who at some time during last period
were involved in an improvement project.
ECU The total number of ECU's spent on training during the last period.
Includes internal and external training and education.
Days The average total working days for an employee during the last period.
Days The average number of days during the period for which an employee
undergoes training.
ECU The total cost of all incentive schemes during the last period.
Hours The total number of person-hours spent at management team meetings
during the last period.
Hours The total number of person-hours spent on the development of enterprise
strategy during the last period.
Hours The total percentage of time for which the main computer system in the
enterprise (network server or management information system server etc.)
was unavailable in the last period.
Number The total number of work-related injuries in the last period.
ECU The total cost of preventative maintenance of machines, computers, etc. in
the last period.
Number The total number of written employee suggestions received during last
period. These suggestions may relate to process improvements, product
improvements or any other improvements within the enterprise and may
come from any personnel.
Hours The sum of all hours of downtime on critical machines during the last
period where a critical machine is one which is essential to maintain full
production.
Hours The sum of the maximum possible available production machine hours
during the last period. This should be calculated as the total number of
hours during which the entire production facility is "open".
ECU The total cost of investment in improvement projects and associated
activities during the last period. This includes labour, services
(consultancy, training etc.), equipment and software for projects aimed at
improving the performance of any process.
30
Appendix B: A List of the ENAPS Performance Indicators
Table B: The ENAPS Performance Indicators.
Performance Indicator
Enterprise Level
1 Return on capital employed
2 Return on equity
3 Capital turnover
4 Margin
5 Profit
6 Operating expense
7 Quick ratio
8 Cash ratio
9 Payment capacity
10 Sales outstanding
11 Sales per employee
12 Value-added per employee
13 Inventory turnover
14 Debt ratio
15 Customer satisfaction
16 Value of joint ventures
Product Development
1 Average product development lead
time
2 Product launch target adherence
3 Product development efficiency
4 Product development cost
5 Engineering change costs
6 Warranty costs of new products
7 Product development reliability
8 Contribution of new products
9 New product introduction
performance
10 Proportion of new products
11 Extent of co-engineering
12 Patenting performance
13 Modularity of products
14 Proportion of people in product
development
15 Product variance
16 Components recycled
Value Units Formula
% Capital Turnover*Margin
% Profit/Equity
% Sales/Total assets
% Profit/Sales
ECU Sales - Operating expense
ECU Purchased materials cost + Other costs
% (Current assets + Receivables)/Current liabilities
% Current assets/Current liabilities
ECU Current assets - Current liabilities
% (Receivables * 360)/Sales
% Sales/Number of employees
% (Sales-Purchased material cost)/Number of employees
Days Average value of stock*360/Purchased material cost
% External Capital/Total liabilities
Ratio Number of customer complaints/Total number of orders
% Profit made from joint ventures/Sales
Weeks The average time from product concept specification document until
production ramp up, where "ramp up" means to reach full expected
volume production, for new products launched during the last period.
% Number of products launched late in the last three years/Total number of
new products launched in the last three years
Ratio Average planned product development lead time/Average product
development lead time
% (Total product engineering and design cost + total product research cost +
total product-related process engineering cost)/Sales
% Cost of engineering drawing changes/Sales
% Warranty costs of new products/Sales of new products
% Total number of customer complaint-related design changes/Total
number of active products
% Sales of New Products/Sales
% Number of unsuccessful new products/Total number of new products
% Number of new products developed last period/Total number of active
products
% Number of co-engineered products/Total number of new products
developed
% Number of patents awarded last period/Total number of patents held
% Number of components with multiple usage/Total number of components
% Number of people involved in product development/Total workforce
% Number of product variants/Number of active products
% Number of produced components recycled last period/Total number of
components produced last period
31
 Obtaining Customer
Commitment
1 Tender preparation lead time
2 New customer return
3 Tender return
4 Marketing cost ratio
5 Customer base growth
6 Lost customers
7 Market share for main product
8 Tender efficiency
9 Tendering hit ratio
10 Customer visits
11 Value added per marketing
employee
12 Customer dependency
13 Green product sales ratio
Customer Service:
1 Average complaint response time
2 Product takeback profit
3 After-sales service profit
4 Average complaint resolution time
5 Returned products ratio
6 Product takeback ratio
Order Fulfilment:
1 Commercial lead time ratio
2 Material procurement lead time ratio
3 Production and assembly lead time
ratio
4 Distribution lead time ratio
5 Commercial cost ratio
6 Inventory cost ratio
7 Distribution cost ratio
8 Materials cost ratio
9 Production cost ratio
10 Average order value
11 Work in progress
12 Value of cancelled orders
13 Outgoing delivery quality
14 Outgoing delivery completeness
15 Outgoing delivery timeliness
16 Incoming delivery quality
17 Incoming delivery completeness
18 Incoming delivery timeliness
Weeks as is
% Sales to new customers/Sales
% Total cost of preparing tenders/Total sales resulting from tenders
% The marketing cost/Sales
% Number of new customers/total number of customers
Ratio Number of lost customers/Total customers
% as is
% Total tenders value/Sales
% Number of successful tenders/Total number of tenders
% Number of customer visits/Number of customers
% (Sales - Purchased material)/Number of marketing employees
% The percentage of customers accounting for 80% of sales volume last
period.
% Sales of products receiving country's green label/sales
Days as is
% Product takeback revenue - Product takeback cost/Sales
% Income from after-sales service/Sales
Days as is
% Number of products returned because of faults/Total number of product
units sold
% Number of Product units taken back/Number of product units sold
% Commercial lead lime/Order fulfilment lead time
% Average material procurement lead time/Order fulfilment lead time
% Production and assembly lead time/Order fulfilment lead time
% Distribution lead time/Order fulfilment lead time
% Commercial costs/Sales
% Inventory costs/Sales
% Distribution cost/Sales
% Purchased material costs/Sales
% Production cost/Sales
ECU Sales/ Total number of customer orders
% Cost of work in progress/(Purchased material cost + Total Production
cost)
% Value of cancelled orders/Sales
% Number of customer deliveries containing defective parts/Total number
of customer orders
% Number of complete customer orders/Total number of customer orders
delivered
% Number of customer orders delivered on time/Total number of customer
orders
% Number of incoming deliveries containing defective parts/ total number
of incoming deliveries
% Number of complete incoming deliveries/Total number of incoming
deliveries
% Number of incoming deliveries received on time/Total number of
incoming deliveries
32
19 Supplier payment timelines
20 Customer payment timeliness
21 Incoming rejection cost
22 Percentage re-work
23 Percentage scrap
24 Energy cost
25 Production process environmental-
friendliness
26 CO2 volume
Support Processes
1 Overtime cost
2 Preventative maintenance cost
3 System downtime
4 Employee absenteeism
5 Employee turnover
6 Machine downtime
7 Training investment
8 Time spent on training
9 Employee participation
10 Health and safety
Evolution
1 Improvement effort
2 Incentive scheme investment
3 Employee improvement efforts
4 Total person-hours spent at
management team meetings
5 Total management team person-
hours spent on strategy
6 Customer participation in
developments
7 Certified suppliers
8 Suppliers contact
% Number of on-time payments to suppliers/Total number of purchase
orders
% Number of on-time customer payments/Total number of invoices
% Components rejected at incoming inspection/Purchased material costs
% Re-work hours/Total production hours
% Cost of scrap material/Purchased material cost
% Cost of energy/Sales
% Mass of environmentally-unfriendly material produced/total mass of
product produced
M3/ECU Number of cubic metres of oil * CO2 ratio/Sales
% Cost of overtime/ Total wages
% Cost of preventative maintenance/Sales
% Number of hours the main computer system was unavailable/Total
available hours
% Number of man days lost due to absenteeism/Maximum man days
available
% Number of employees that left the enterprise/Average number of
employees
% Sum of all machine hours of downtime/Maximum number of machine
hours
% Training and educational cost/Sales
% Average time spent on training for each employee/Average total working
time
% Number of employee suggestions/Average number of employees
% Number of injuries/Average number of employees
% Cost of all improvement projects/Sales
% Cost of incentive schemes/Sales
% Number employees involved in an improvement project team/Average
number of employees
Hours as is
Hours as is
% Number of implemented customer suggestions/Number of customer
suggestions
% Number of ISO9000-certified suppliers/Number of suppliers
% Number of suppliers visited/Number of suppliers
33